Posted on 09/18/2014 8:28:39 AM PDT by iowamark
[UPDATE: Early this morning, in a discussion thread about whether references to Neil deGrasse Tyson's history of quote fabrication should be added to Tyson's Wikipedia page, an editor stated that "no version of this event will be allowed into the article."]
Religious fanatics have an odd habit of overreacting when people have the audacity to question their fanaticism. In Iraq, radical Islamic jihadists are systemically murdering and beheading Christians, Jews, and even Muslims who do not pledge fealty to ISIS’s religious tenets. Hundreds of years ago, church authorities and Aristotelian acolytes imprisoned Galileo for having the audacity to reject geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism. The bible recounts how Christians were persecuted and stoned, and Jesus himself was crucified for contradicting the religious dogma of the day.
You will bow to the religious zealots, or you will pay the price.
Which brings us to l’affaire de Tyson. Neil Tyson, a prominent popularizer of science (he even has his own television show) was recently found to have repeatedly fabricated multiple quotes over several years. The fabrications were not a one-off thing. They were deliberate and calculated, crafted with one goal in mind: to elevate Tyson, and by extension his audience, at the expense of know-nothing, knuckle-dragging nutjobs who hate science. Tyson targeted journalists, members of Congress, even former President George W. Bush. And what was their crime? They were guilty of rejecting science, according to Tyson.
There’s only one problem. None of the straw man quotes that Tyson uses to tear them down are real. The quote about the numerically illiterate newspaper headline? Fabricated. The quote about a member of Congress who said he had changed his views 360 degrees? It doesn’t exist. That time a U.S. president said “Our God is the God who named the stars” as a way of dividing Judeo-Christian beliefs from Islamic beliefs? It never happened.
These are not ticky-tack fouls. In the world of publishing and public speaking, quotes are evidence. Quotes are to journalism what data are to science. If they’re not real, they’re irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how juicy and revealing they are if they never happened. Fabrication is the cardinal sin of publishing. Just ask Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass, who to this day is prohibited from practicing law in the state of California because of his history of fabrication.
Judging by many of the responses to the three pieces I wrote detailing Neil Tyson’s history of fabricating quotes and embellishing stories (part 1, part 2, and part 3), you’d think I had defamed somebody’s god. It turns out that fanatical cultists do not appreciate being shown evidence that the object of their worship may not, in fact, be infallible.
Which brings us to Wikipedia. Oh, Wikipedia. After I published my piece about Neil Tyson’s fabrication of the George W. Bush quote, several users edited Neil Tyson’s wiki page to include details of the quote fabrication controversy. The fact-loving, evidence-weighing, ever-objective editors of the online encyclopedia did not appreciate the inclusion of the evidence of Tyson’s fabrication. Not at all.
According to a review of the edit history of Tyson’s page, one long-time Wikipedia editor deleted an entire pending section summarizing the issue of Tyson’s fabricated quotes. Another editor attempted to insert a brief mention of Tyson’s fabrication of the George W. Bush quote. That mention was also deleted. When it was reinserted, it was deleted yet again by an editor who describes himself as a childless progressive and an apostle of Daily Kos (h/t @kerpen). Here are just a few of that user’s political ramblings, in case you were curious about the motivation behind the scrubbing of Tyson’s wiki.
Literally every single mention of Tyson’s history of fabricating quotes has been removed from Tyson’s Wikipedia page.
And then there are the comments about my most recent piece from the very open-minded, tolerant, and not-at-all-religiously-fanatical readers of the website Fark.com, which are incredibly illustrative (content warning).
One commenter posted my picture and said I was “punchable” (probably true). Another asked where the line to punch me formed (please let me know when you find it so I can avoid it). One commenter, the esteemed “LoneWolf343″ said, “I would be punched in the face a thousand times just so I can punch that face.”
Then there’s this hefty defense of Tyson’s fabrication by Fark commenter “nekom,” who apparently struggles mightily with the complexities of modern English:
Yet another commenter felt compelled to photoshop my face, as if I’m not goofy-looking enough already. One suggested my critique of Tyson was due entirely to racism. Then came the bizarre accusations of homosexuality (I’m still incredibly confused as to why that’s supposed to be an insult, especially coming from a very liberal community that professes open-minded tolerance), which were of course followed by the violent sexual fantasies of several Fark commenters.
All in all, it was exactly what I expected from a group of hopelessly misguided religious zealots who will not tolerate the slander of their savior. There’s a word for people who fantasize about using sexual violence to force their will upon dissenters, but it’s not “scientist.”
It was renowned Internet intellectual “CheapEngineer,” however, who had the courage to verbalize what the rest of the fanatics were really thinking about the whole affair:
At this point I don’t have a problem with *any* slandering of GWB.
Exactly. And that’s what’s so valuable about the hysterical responses to my research on Tyson. These lovers of science don’t actually love science, because science requires you to go where the evidence takes you, even if it goes against your original hypothesis. What many of Tyson’s cultists really like is the notion that one can become more intelligent via osmosis — that you can become as smart and as credentialed as Tyson by merely clapping like a seal at whatever he says, as long as what he says fits the political worldview of your average progressive liberal.
Tyson may be a great scientist, but what he’s selling at a price of $70 per ticket isn’t science. He’s selling the self satisfaction that comes from moral preening. Neil Tyson is adored by people who want the sweet feeling of smug, intellectual superiority without all the baggage of actually being intellectually superior in any way. They love math and science up to the point at which one of them needs to figure out a restaurant tip, and then out comes the iPhone calculator. The more self-aware ones will just round up to the nearest dollar and then pretend it’s because they’re generous. But overall, we’re dealing with people who love science so much that they picked college majors just to avoid the subject they allegedly love so dearly.
If you doubt me, then just scan through the Fark comments to get a sense of the soaring intellect of Tyson’s most ardent defenders. I’ve got bad news for you “science lovers” out there: clicking “like” on a Facebook meme is not science, and spending all day looking at pictures on the Internet does not make you a scientist.
Thankfully, not all fans of Neil Tyson’s work are eager to shut their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears to avoid acknowledging the rather obvious faults of their faith leader. Hemant Mehta, a writer for Patheos who describes himself as the “Friendly Atheist,” wrote a very honest and introspective review of the fabrication evidence against Tyson. Unlike many of Tyson’s unhinged followers, Mehta allowed the evidence to be his guide:
I give similar speeches at different places. Believe me, I’ve made mistakes in my talks before. But if and when someone points them out to me, I do my best to fix them. I would expect no less from Dr. Tyson.
Considering that Tyson is speaking at Apostacon on Friday night — to an audience full of skeptics — it would behoove them all to be on the lookout for these quotations or others like them. Do some fact-checking while you’re listening to him. Challenge him if you can’t verify what he says.
If a pastor or right-wing conservative did it, we’d be calling them out on it immediately. Tyson doesn’t deserve a free pass just because his intentions are pure. It certainly wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) get by in an academic setting, and just because he often speaks to a lay audience doesn’t mean he should make up quotations or fail to cite them if they’re real.
Mehta is right: if a right-wing conservative — if a skeptic of climate alarmism, for example — were accused of wholesale fabrication of evidence, he would have already been run out of town. But not Tyson. Why the disparity? That’s easy: because Tyson’s sins were committed out of a pure desire to further the common good. He believes the “right” things, which means his rather serious iniquities can be forgiven. A little fabrication can be swept under the rug so long as it’s in service of a higher agenda.
That is not the kind of attitude that is supposed to form the actual foundation of science, which consists of following the facts and the evidence wherever it takes you, no matter how unpleasant. Science is supposed to be the search for truth, not the search for stuff that just happens to support your political agenda. Science certainly isn’t the creation of bogus evidence out of thin air — the intelligent design of quotes ex nihilo, if you will — in order to support a political agenda.
Fabrication isn’t science. Ignoring inconvenient evidence isn’t science. And faithfully nodding your head whenever somebody says something you go agree with doesn’t make you a scientist. It makes you a parrot, and a religiously zealous one at that.
So what’s new about the Left using “fake but accurate?”
I never liked Tyson. I’ve always thought he was an over hyped drama queen.
The first 20 minutes of the first episode of his “Cosmos” was a thinly disguised hit piece on the Catholic Church. I turned it off right then and never went back.
Another typical participant of GEORGE NOOREY WACKO TO WACKO AM RADIO SHOW.
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling.”
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/tyson-neil-degrasse/21244
DRAMA QUEEN...kinda like out current presidente’.
Yes, Tyson is a damned fool. There, I said it.
That no longer seems to be a matter of your opinion. That is OBVIOUSLY a fact. His little straw-man stories and attribution of false quotes are right out of the playbook of modern politicians and demagogues(I know I'm being redundant here). Particularly those of the liberal variety.
They do this, because they know full well that they'll ALWAYS get away with it due to a lapdog MSM and websites such as Wikipedia, ect. It goes all the way to the President. A key part of 0bama's talking points is through the use of straw-men arguments. If HE can do it and get a pass from the media, anyone can. Thirty years ago, these people would have gotten away with this stuff COMPLETELY, as there were no truth tellers out there to call them on their straw-man bullshit, and false quotes.
Almost always interesting to drop in on Wikipedia TALK page to follow the developments.
Tyson has claimed that following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush said "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)".[59] No evidence exists of Bush saying that.[60]
The closest documented quote was from 2003 after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, when Bush said: "The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home."[61]
Not exactly "removing all references", that.
” Tyson may be a great scientist...”
What???
He’s a great scientist the way Maya Angelou is a great poet... affirmative action.
There are much better scientists who don’t go out of their way to be overtly hostile to religion.
Only HIS views and inaccuracies! (and exaggerations and predictions and propaganda) were permitted.
It is discouraging to find the a supposed scientist is resorting to the same sophistry and embellishing or inventing of quotes that has long been the hallmark of young earth creationists.
The discussion was polite, professional, and very helpful. The subject of AGW has never come up. Somehow I doubt he would have been as polite and professional with me if he knew my views on AGW.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an above average Affirmative Action physicist.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone who criticizes him will feel the full wrath of the Democrat Party.
One of the quotes mentioned is not fabricated. Paraphrased, yes but not made up. The 360 degree quote was made by Maxine Waters to Henry Hyde during the Judiciary Committee hearings for Clinton’s impeachment. I saw it live on C-Span. She was chastising him for allegedly changing his views “360 degrees”. Hyde stared at her for a moment, and said something about the “genltlelady” being educated beyond her intelligence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.